Comparison on Total Weight of Steel Reinforcement for 5 Story Reinforced Concrete Building with and Without Seismic Design

  • Mohd Irwan AdiyantoEmail author
  • Nur Hazwani Mohd Rashid
  • Syed Abdul Haris Syed Mustapa
  • Noram Irwan Ramli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 53)


On June 5th 2015, Malaysia was shocked by an earthquake with Mw6.1 which had struck Ranau, one of the districts in Sabah. The moderate earthquake was the strongest recorded since the Mw5.8 earthquake which occurred in Lahad Datu in 1976. The Ranau earthquake had caused minor to severe damages to local buildings. Although Sabah is located outside the Pacific Ring of Fire, there are some regions which set at risk of earthquake namely as Kundasang, Ranau, Pitas, Lahad Datu and Tawau. After experiencing the tremors from both local and regional earthquakes, Malaysian now aware on the importance of seismic design on buildings and structures. However, the effect of seismic design application on cost of materials need to be studied beforehand. In relation to that, this study presents the seismic design of reinforced concrete hotel or dormitory building with consideration of different magnitude of reference peak ground acceleration, αgR and different soil type. Result shows that both parameters strongly influencing the cost of steel reinforcement. The latter is estimated to be increase around 14–247% higher compared to similar building without seismic design.


Seismic design Eurocode 8 Reference peak ground acceleration Soil type Cost estimation 



All authors acknowledged the financial support from Internal Research Grant number RDU1703240 provided by Universiti Malaysia Pahang as well as facilities provided in design laboratory.


  1. 1.
    Adiyanto MI, Majid TA (2014) Seismic design of two storey reinforced concrete building in Malaysia with low class ductility. J Eng Sci Technol 9(1):27–46Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adiyanto MI, Majid, Ahmad Jani F, Mustapha SAHS, Ahmad SW (2019) Estimation on amount of steel reinforcement for six storey hospital with seismic design consideration in Malaysia. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental sciences, vol 244, p 012015Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adiyanto MI, Majid TA, Nazri FM (2017) Nonstructural damages of reinforced concrete buildings due to 2015 ranau earthquake. In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol 1865, p 090002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bernama (2015) Gempa Sabah: Gegaran Terkuat Sejak 1976. Accessed on 30 Mar 2019
  5. 5.
    CEN Eurocode (2002) Basis of structural design. Brussels. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CEN Eurocode 1 (2002) Action on structures part 1: general actions—densities, self weight, imposed loads for buildings. Brussels. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    CEN Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels. European Committee for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hamid NH, Azmi A, Adiyanto MI, Mohamad M (2018) Seismic performance of two-bay two-storey RC frame under in-plane lateral cyclic loading. Malaysian Constr Res J 25(2):61–73Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harith NSH, Adnan A, Shoushtari AV (2015) Seismic hazard assessment of east Malaysia region. In: International conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Floating MSC ORCHESTRA Cruiser, 12–16 MayGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khoiry MA, Hamzah N, Osman SA, Mutalib AA, Hamid R (2018) Physical damages effect on residential houses caused by the earthquake at Ranau, Sabah Malaysia. Int J Eng Technol 10(5):414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Majid TA (2009) Less than one percent of buildings in Malaysia have earthquake preventive measures. Accessed on 19 Mar 2019
  12. 12.
    Majid TA, Adnan A, Adiyanto MI, Ramli MZ, Ghuan TC (2017) Preliminary damage assessment due to 2015 Ranau earthquake. Int J Civil Eng Geo-Environ 49–54. Special Publication NCWE2017Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malaysia National Annex to Eurocode 8 (2017) Design of structures for earthquake resistance part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Selangor. Department of Standards MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marto A, Tan CS, Kassim F, Mohd Yunus NZ (2013) Seismic impact in peninsular Malaysia. In: The 5th international geotechnical symposium, Incheon, 22–24 MayGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McClure J, Wills C, Johnston D, Recker C (2011) How the 2010 canterbury (darfield) earthquake affected earthquake risk perception: comparing citizens inside and outside the earthquake region. Australas J Disaster Trauma Stud 2011(2):3–10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramli MZ, Adnan A, Kadir MAA, Alel MNA (2017) Cost comparison for non-seismic (EC@) and seismic (EC8) design in different ductility class. Int J Civil Eng Geo-Environ 38–42. Special Publication NCWE2017Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohd Irwan Adiyanto
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nur Hazwani Mohd Rashid
    • 1
  • Syed Abdul Haris Syed Mustapa
    • 2
    • 3
  • Noram Irwan Ramli
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversiti Malaysia PahangGambangMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Architecture, Planning, and SurveyingUniversiti Teknologi MaraPerakMalaysia
  3. 3.AS2 Consult Sdn BhdPerakMalaysia

Personalised recommendations